Citations

Abstract INTRODUCTION Psychotropic medication (PM) use in behavioral‐variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is higher than in other dementias. However, no information exists on whether PM use differs between sporadic and genetic bvFTD. METHODS We analyzed data from sporadic and genetic bvFTD participants with PM prescriptions in the Advancing Research and Treatment in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration/Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects study. We estimated ordinal odds ratio (OOR) of having more PM comparing sporadic and genetic bvFTD. Finally, we explored the neuropsychiatric symptom (NPS) combinations using classification and regression trees (CART). RESULTS We included 263 with sporadic and 193 with genetic bvFTD. The OOR for sporadic bvFTD to be on PM was 1.75 (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 2.53) for the fully adjusted model. CART revealed the most common NPS combination was apathy + personality changes in 18% of participants. DISCUSSION Participants with sporadic bvFTD were twice as likely to be on PM compared to genetic bvFTD. The reason for increased PM usage in sporadic bvFTD participants should be further investigated. Highlights We report on patients with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). We evaluated the psychotropic medication (PM) prescription at baseline in the cohort. Patients with sporadic bvFTD had more prescriptions for PM than genetic patients. The frequency of symptoms combination was different in sporadic and genetic bvFTD.

ABSTRACT In this secondary analysis of 386 subjects with Gram-negative bacteremia enrolled in the RAPIDS GN trial, rapid antibiotic susceptibility testing had a greater benefit on the management of bacteremia caused by antibiotic-resistant compared to antibiotic-susceptible isolates, especially for Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species , and Proteus species. IMPORTANCE Rapid blood culture diagnostics are costly, and their use has not demonstrated clear clinical benefit for patients with Gram-negative sepsis, possibly because prior trials did not enroll sufficient numbers of patients with antibiotic-resistant infections. This analysis of patients with sepsis previously enrolled in a randomized controlled clinical trial demonstrates that rapid susceptibility testing of bacteria from blood cultures had the greatest impact for patients with antibiotic-resistant infections. Specifically, after rapid testing results were reported, patients infected with resistant bacteria received appropriate antibiotic therapy more quickly than patients with susceptible bacteria. These findings highlight the need to evaluate blood culture diagnostics in areas with high antibiotic resistance where these diagnostics are likely to have the greatest impact.

PURPOSE SWOG S1815 was a randomized, open label phase III trial, evaluating gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and cisplatin (GAP) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with newly diagnosed advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs). METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BTC, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), were randomly assigned 2:1 to either GAP (gemcitabine 800 mg/m 2 , cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 , and nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m 2 intravenously once per day on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). RESULTS Among 452 randomly assigned participants, 441 were eligible and analyzable, 67% with ICC, 16% with GBC, and 17% with ECC. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between GAP versus GC. Median OS with GAP was 14.0 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 16.1) and 13.6 months with GC (95% CI, 9.7 to 16.6); hazard ratio (HR), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.72 to 1.14); P = .41. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar between groups with median PFS for GAP being 7.5 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 8.5) versus 6.3 months for GC (95% CI, 4.4 to 8.2); HR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.71 to 1.12); P = .32. In exploratory subset analyses, the OS and PFS benefits of GAP versus GC treatment were greater in locally advanced disease compared with metastatic disease, although not statistically significant (interaction P = .14 for OS and P = .17 for PFS). Moreover, GAP versus GC showed greater improvement in PFS among participants with GBC than those with ICC or ECC (interaction P = .01), but not OS (interaction P = .28). CONCLUSION The addition of a taxane in the GAP regimen to the standard gemcitabine-cisplatin regimen did not improve OS in newly diagnosed BTC. More toxicity was encountered with GAP versus GC.

Introduction: The primary analysis of the phase 3 ECHO trial (NCT02972840) demonstrated that acalabrutinib plus bendamustine-rituximab (ABR) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo plus bendamustine-rituximab (PBR) in older patients (pts) with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) (Wang et al. EHA 2024, Abstract #LB3439). Here we present additional efficacy and safety results from the ECHO trial. Methods: Pts aged ≥65 years (y) with previously untreated MCL and ECOG PS ≤2 were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ABR or PBR. Acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo was administered until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. Induction with BR was administered for 6 cycles followed by rituximab maintenance (A±R maintenance, cycles 7-30) in pts achieving a partial or complete response (PR or CR). Pts progressing on PBR could cross over to receive acalabrutinib monotherapy. PFS (primary endpoint) was assessed by independent review committee. Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (10-5) was assessed in peripheral blood (every 24 weeks [wks], at CR, and at PD) and bone marrow (at CR) by NGS-based ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Results: Among the 598 pts randomized to ABR or PBR (299 in each arm), high-risk baseline characteristics included high-risk simplified MIPI score in 24.1% and 24.4%, blastoid histology in 8.7% and 6.7%, pleomorphic histology in 5.0% and 6.0%, centrally tested Ki-67 ≥30% in 46.5% and 49.2%, and known TP53 mutation in 7.4% and 9.7%, respectively. PFS hazard ratios (HRs) for subgroups were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19) in pts with high-risk simplified MIPI score, 0.68 (95% CI 0.29-1.58) in pts with blastoid histology, 0.64 (95% CI 0.25-1.66) in pts with pleomorphic histology, 0.69 (95% CI 0.49-0.98) in pts with Ki-67 ≥30%, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.42-1.78) in pts with known TP53 mutation. In the ABR arm, median PFS was 22.2 months (mo) among pts who discontinued acalabrutinib during induction for reasons other than PD or death, 29.4 mo in pts who discontinued acalabrutinib during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30) for reasons other than PD or death, and not reached in pts who received acalabrutinib for 31 cycles or more. Among evaluable patients who were MRD negative at the end of induction (24 wks), the rate of conversion to MRD positive during maintenance was lower in the ABR arm (5.85%; n=11/188) than in the PBR arm (15%; n=26/171). Conversely, among evaluable pts who were MRD positive at the end of induction (24 wks), 37.5% (n=3/8) in the ABR arm and 20% (n=3/15) in the PBR arm converted to MRD negative during maintenance. Overall rates of AEs were similar in each arm during induction, but were higher in ABR during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30) and more so in the monotherapy phase (cycle 31+). Grade ≥3 TEAEs (ABR vs PBR) were 70.0% vs 68.7% during induction, 64.9% vs 62.9% during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30), and 57.0% vs 45.3% during monotherapy (cycle 31+). Similarly, rates of TEAEs leading to discontinuation of acalabrutinib/placebo were 8.1% vs 8.8% during induction, 23.9% vs 19.0% during A±R maintenance (cycles 7-30), and 25.9% vs 13.7% during monotherapy (cycle 31+). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 person-years reduced the difference between ABR and PBR for clinically relevant TEAE rates (32.6 vs 29.3 for grade ≥3 serious TEAEs; 4.2 vs 4.0 for grade 5 TEAEs; 15.5 vs 12.4 for TEAEs leading to acalabrutinib/placebo discontinuation), possibly due to longer median exposure to acalabrutinib (28.6 vs 24.6 mo). Conclusion: Acalabrutinib in combination with BR provides a significant PFS benefit in pts with previously untreated MCL, including those with high-risk features. Furthermore, the addition of acalabrutinib to BR provided a greater PFS effect among pts in the ABR arm with the longest exposure to acalabrutinib. The PFS improvement may be partially driven by the contribution of acalabrutinib to sustained MRD-negative status and deepened responses after the end of induction. ABR provides this clinical benefit without excess toxicity as shown by attenuated differences between arms in exposure-adjusted incidence rates, suggesting that higher AE rates in the ABR arm are likely due in part to the longer duration of acalabrutinib treatment vs placebo. These data emphasize the benefits of acalabrutinib in frontline MCL treatment in high-risk pts and the additional benefit of continuous therapy.

Introduction: Progression-free survival (PFS), a common endpoint used in multiple myeloma (MM) trials, is defined as the time to the earliest occurrence of disease progression or death. Disease progression in MM is determined by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Uniform Response Criteria based on imaging and biomarkers from blood, urine, and bone marrow biopsy testing. In clinical trials, IMWG-recommended assessments are protocol-based. However, in routine care, they are often performed and recorded differently based on a multitude of factors. Algorithms to ascertain progression events using routinely collected biomarker data are important to classify disease progression and align with trial-defined endpoints. The aim of this study was to construct and evaluate an optimized real-world Progression (rwP) algorithm using real-world data (RWD) and demonstrate how biomarker data are captured and used to derive endpoints in routine practice. Method: A cohort of 270 transplant ineligible newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients starting on lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) and meeting select MAIA (NCT02252172) trial eligibility criteria were included from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived deidentified database from 2015 to 2023. A rwP algorithm was developed using key IMWG-recommended biomarkers, including serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP), urine protein electrophoresis (UPEP), and serum free light chains (FLCs). The initial baseline value for each biomarker was identified, if available, during either the pre-treatment period (45 days prior through 7 days after first line treatment (1L) start) or the on-treatment period (8 days after 1L start through 1L end). Available biomarkers were followed for disease assessment. If any subsequent lab value during 1L treatment was less than the initial baseline value, the subsequent “on-treatment baseline” value was adopted as the new lowest value; otherwise, the initial value was used as the “on-treatment baseline” value for assessing progression events. Three hierarchies, which describe the order of utilizing key IMWG-recommended biomarkers to define rwP events, were explored, including: i) strict hierarchy (SH) [SPEP > UPEP > FLCs], ii) partial hierarchy (PH) [SPEP = UPEP > FLCs], and iii) no hierarchy (NH) [SPEP = UPEP = FLCs]. The PH option closely resembles the IMWG criteria, with FLCs only used for rwP assessments when no measurable SPEP/UPEP are identified. The NH approach considers all available biomarkers equally and resembles how they are utilized in real-world clinical practice. The feasibility of requiring confirmatory events following the first suggestion of progression was also explored. Assays following the progression event up to the end of 1L were considered as confirmatory progression events if they met IMWG criteria. Results: We applied the rwP algorithm with each hierarchy to all eligible NDMM patients (N = 270). The SH, PH, and NH approaches respectively identified 106 (39.3%), 106 (39.3%), and 123 (45.6%) patients with progression events. Results from the SH and PH approach are consistent likely due to the rarity of UPEP usage in clinical practice. The NH approach captured more progression events because FLCs are used in the presence of measurable SPEP or UPEP, resulting in 73 progression events captured by FLCs in comparison to 32 from other approaches, potentially increasing false-positive capture due to the volatility of FLC results. Among the 106 PH-identified patients who progressed, 84 (79.2%) had IMWG-recommended tests following their progression event, and 74 (69.8%) had their progression confirmed before the end of 1L, with 35 (33.0%) receiving their confirmatory reading within 2 months after progression. These results suggest that requiring confirmatory testing as part of the rwP is feasible, though it may introduce false negatives for patients receiving clinical progression confirmation instead of getting confirmatory labs in routine clinical practice. Conclusion: We present a comprehensive assessment of important design choices for an rwP algorithm for NDMM, including a hierarchy of key assays and the inclusion of confirmatory testing. Further validation of the algorithm with health care provider assessments and the inclusion of bone marrow biopsy and imaging data is important for evaluating the performance of the algorithm in RWD.

Introduction: High-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor disorder to active multiple myeloma (MM) without approved treatment options. However, recent evidence suggests patients at high risk of progression to MM may benefit from early treatment. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanisms of action. DARA is approved as monotherapy for relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for RRMM and newly diagnosed MM. Based on the encouraging activity and tolerability observed with DARA monotherapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk SMM in the phase 2 CENTAURUS study, the phase 3 AQUILA study sought to determine if DARA could delay progression to MM versus active monitoring. Here we report the primary analysis from the AQUILA study. Methods: Eligible patients had a confirmed diagnosis of high-risk SMM for ≤5 years, defined as clonal bone marrow plasma cells (BMPCs) ≥10% and ≥1 risk factor (serum M protein ≥30 g/L, IgA SMM, immunoparesis with reduction of 2 uninvolved Ig isotypes, serum involved:uninvolved free light chain ratio ≥8 and <100, and/or clonal BMPCs >50% to <60%). Focal and lytic lesion assessment was performed in screening by CT and MRI and centrally reviewed prior to study enrollment. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DARA SC versus active monitoring. DARA (QW in Cycles 1 and 2, Q2W in Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter) was given in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as progression to active MM as assessed by an independent review committee and according to IMWG diagnostic criteria for MM (SLiM-CRAB) or death. Major secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS on first-line MM treatment (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 390 patients (DARA, n = 194; active monitoring, n = 196) were randomized. Median (range) age (64 [31-86] years) and time from initial SMM diagnosis to randomization (0.72 [0-5.0] years) were balanced between treatment groups. Median treatment duration in the DARA group was 38 cycles (35.0 months). At a median (range) follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months, PFS was significantly improved with DARA versus active monitoring (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P <0.0001). Median PFS was not reached in the DARA group versus 41.5 months for active monitoring; estimated 60-month PFS rates were 63.1% versus 40.8%, respectively. Prespecified analyses showed generally consistent PFS improvement with DARA versus active monitoring across subgroups. ORR was 63.4% with DARA versus 2.0% with active monitoring (P <0.0001). As of the clinical cutoff, 64 (33.0%) patients in the DARA group and 102 (52.0%) patients in the active monitoring group had started first-line MM treatment. Median time from randomization to the date of first-line MM treatment was not reached with DARA versus 50.2 months with active monitoring (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62; nominal P <0.0001). There was a positive trend in favor of DARA for PFS2 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.96) and OS (60-month OS rates: DARA, 93.0%; active monitoring, 86.9%; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98). A total of 41 deaths were observed, 15 for the DARA group and 26 for the active monitoring group. Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% and 30.1% of patients in the DARA and active monitoring groups, respectively. The most common (≥5% in either group) grade 3/4 TEAE was hypertension (DARA, 5.7%; active monitoring, 4.6%). The frequency of TEAEs leading to DARA discontinuation was low (5.7%), as was the incidence of fatal TEAEs in both groups (DARA, 1.0%; active monitoring, 2.0%). Conclusions: DARA monotherapy was well tolerated and demonstrated a clinically meaningful and significant benefit in preventing or delaying progression to active MM compared with active monitoring in patients with high-risk SMM. ORR was significantly higher and time to first-line MM treatment was prolonged with DARA compared with active monitoring. This was accompanied by positive trends for PFS2 and OS in favor of DARA. These results strongly support the benefit of early intervention with DARA monotherapy versus active monitoring, the current standard of care, in patients with high-risk SMM.

Background. Study of myeloid neoplasms (MN) has been rapidly transformed by genome characterization. Gene mutations have been reported to influence disease phenotype and risk of disease progression, and the evaluation of mutational status can provide valuable insights to improve the decision-making process. In this international study, we evaluated the clinical impact of mutational screening in patients with CMML, which is characterized by significant clinical and genomic heterogeneity, including a substantial proportion of patients with poor outcomes and unmet needs. Currently, only limited molecular information has been incorporated into CMML classification and prognostication. Methods. We retrospectively collected 3182 CMML patients. We used MOSAIC, an AI-based framework for multimodal analysis in rare cancers (PMID: 38875514) to develop innovative, molecular-based tools for classification and prognostication. An independent validation of the results on 516 prospectively collected patients was performed. Results. Bayesian Networs and Hierarchical Dirichlet Processes were used to identify genomic associations and define a CMML molecular classification. We identified 11 clusters with distinct clinical and genomic features, including splicing machinery, signal transduction and tyrosine kinase pathways aberrations, and high-risk molecular signatures (i.e., AML-like and TP53 mutations). Up to 15% of patients showed clear genomic overlap with other MN. Importantly, extensive multi-color flow cytometry on T lymphocytes, NK and myeloid cells (BD FACSymphony A5 Cell Analyzer) revealed specific immunologic and inflammation signatures associated with molecular subgroups. We then integrated molecular and clinical information to build an international CMML Prognostic Scoring System (iCPSS). We assessed the performance of different statistical and AI-based methods; L1-penalized Cox Model resulted as the best performing method. Selected features included hematological parameters (WBC, Hb, PLT and marrow blasts), cytogenetic abnormalities, and mutations in 10 genes (ASXL1, DNMT3A, EZH2, NRAS, RUNX1, SETBP1, STAG2, TET2, TP53, U2AF1). By Bayesian thresholds optimization, we identified 5 risk classes (i.e., very-low, low, intermediate, high and very-high) with median overall survival (OS) ranging from 99 to 9 months (P<.001), and median leukemia-free survival (LFS) ranging from 210 to 18 months (P<.001). iCPSS provided better patient discrimination across all clinical endpoints compared to currently available prognostic tools, with a Concordance Index (CI) for OS of 0.75 versus 0.62-0.64, respectively. Notably, compared to available scoring systems, up to 40% of patients were reassigned to higher or lower risk classes by the iCPSS. External validation on an independent prospective cohort confirmed that the performance of iCPSS is superior to existing prognostic models (CI for OS 0.71 vs 0.54-0.61, respectively) To demonstrate the clinical utility of iCPSS, we focused on 753 patients who underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). In multivariable analysis, iCPSS stratified the probability of OS post-HSCT (P<.001) and identified groups of patients with different probabilities of disease relapse, ranging from 9% to 62% (P<.001). We employed a clinical- and genomic-based decision support system (PMID: 38723212) to determine the optimal timing of HSCT. Preliminary analyses indicated that higher-risk patients according to iCPSS (i.e., intermediate, high, and very high) benefit from an immediate HSCT strategy. Lower-risk patients (i.e., very low and low) had life expectancy maximized with delayed HSCT. Modeling decision analysis using iCPSS compared to conventional scores, resulted in a change in transplantation policy for a significant proportion of patients (up to 25%). Conclusion. Molecular information significantly improves the classification of CMML patients, providing a basis for refining diagnostic boundaries with other MN and for a more rational inclusion of patients in clinical trials. The iCPSS demonstrated superior performance over currently available scoring systems and improved HSCT decision making process.